Internet : Where 6 rings does not get you a top 20 ranking

[fpliii]

It's definitely a tight rope, and obviously posters are going to have differing opinions on what exactly should or shouldn't be weighed more heavily.

Unfortunately defense is a hard thing to measure. The few recordable defensive stats that we keep track of weren't recorded in Russells day. The few defensive stats that we do have from that era paint him in a pretty positive light though.

I don't put an enormous amount of stock in Defensive win shares, but over the course of several years they have to have at least some merit, especially when we're dealing with this big of a gap. Below are there top 6 seasons

Bill Russell

16.0
14.4
12.6
11.6
11.4
11.3


Hakeem Olajuwon

8.7
8.0
7.9
7.8
6.8
6.6


Tim Duncan

7.2
7.2
7.1
7.1
6.9
6.9

Shaquille O'Neal

7.0
6.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.0

Also, the year before the Bill arrived in Boston, the Celtics were the 2nd worst defensive team in the league. Once he joined, they rocketed up six spots to become the best defensive team in the league, and then stayed that way for the next twelve seasons. Once Bill retired they drop back down to a mere average defensive team. I really can't think of any other player before or since who's defense has had such a profound impact on the game. What other player is capable of taking a team that's in the bottom half of the league defensively and making them the best defensive team for the next thirteen years? What player is capable of accomplishing that same feat offensively? I can't think of any.

I see Bill Russell's defense as I do Rodman's rebounding, an outlier amongst outliers, for which we may never see a suitable equivalent.

If you haven't already read this, it's worth a read

http://www.backpicks.com/2010/12/31/bill-russells-defensive-impact/

I doubt it will change your mind, but it's quite the interesting read nonetheless . I can certainly see the argument for those three guys depending on how highly you value individual scoring. Also consider the fact that Russell was a better rebounder, and significantly better passer than all three of those guys. Scoring the basketball is really the only thing on court that they did better than Russell, albeit that one thing is pretty damn important.

It's a bit harder to measure something like leadership and off court impact, but I'd say it's safe to give Russell the edge there based on what we do know. He was there defensive floor general all thirteen years and coach from 66-69.

For a guy like Russell it's not as difficult to measure defense, since he was the defensive anchor. As the lynchpin of the Celtics' defenses, the team DRtgs you linked paint a great picture of his impact.

As for DWS, there's a problem comparing across eras:


B. 1951-52 to 1972-73 NBA

Prior to the 1973-74 season, the NBA did not track defensive rebounds, steals, or blocks, so allocating defensive credit is a difficult task. Nevertheless, here is the process for crediting Defensive Win Shares in those seasons (once again using Robertson in 1964-65 as an example):

1. Calculate team marginal defense. Team marginal defense is equal to 1.08 * (league points per shot attempt) * (team field goal attempts + 0.44 * (team free throw attempts)) - (opponent points). If you're wondering why we're using team shot attempts as opposed to opponent shot attempts, the answer is (a) we don't have opponent shot attempts prior to 1970-71 and (b) the system works better using team shot attempts. For the 1964-65 Royals we get 1.08 * 0.9578 * (7797 + 0.44 * 2866) - 8952 = 417.854.

2. Calculate the player's share of the team's marginal defense. The player's share of the team's marginal defense is equal to 0.25 * ((minutes played) / (team minutes played)) + 0.5 * ((total rebounds) / (team total rebounds)) + 0.25 * ((assists) / (team assists)). How did I get those weights? Modern Defensive Win Shares are most dependent on minutes played, defensive rebounds, steals, and blocks. I regressed DWS on those stats and then found the relative importance of each regressor (approximately 25% for minutes played, 35% for defensive rebounds, 25% for steals, and 15% for blocks). Since those defensive statistics are not available for past seasons, I used total rebounds as a proxy for defensive rebounds and blocks; and assists as a proxy for steals. A couple more notes: (1) prior to the 1964-65 season, team minutes played were not an official statistic, so for those seasons estimate the team's minutes played using the formula 5 * 48 * (team games) + 125; and (2) prior to the 1967-68 season, team total rebounds included team rebounds, so to account for this multiply the team total by 0.875. Getting back to our example, Robertson's share on the 1964-65 Royals is equal to 0.25 * (3421 / 19325) + 0.5 * (674 / (0.875 * 5387)) + 0.25 * (861 / 1843) = 0.2325.

3. Calculate marginal defense for each player. Marginal defense is equal to (team marginal defense) * (player share). For Robertson this is 417.854 * 0.2325 = 97.151. Note that this formula may produce a negative result for some players.

4. Calculate marginal points per win. Marginal points per win reduces to 0.16 * (team points per game + opponent points per game). For the 1964-65 Royals this is 0.16 * (114.2 + 111.9) = 36.176.

5. Credit defensive Win Shares to the players. Defensive Win Shares are credited using the following formula: (marginal defense) / (marginal points per win). Robertson gets credit for 97.151 / 36.176 = 2.69 Defensive Win Shares.

link (http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html)

I have a few problems with this methodology.

[Hands of Iron]

It won't change my mind, but that's only because it's really far from being made up. I've admittedly dedicated far more time to the league after the Merger (where the multitude of quality film comes into play). Russell and the 1960s era as a whole are something of an enigma to me and another reason I do not definitively rate players in numerical order, why I specify "Post-Merger" on threads and posts, etc.

[DatAsh]

For a guy like Russell it's not as difficult to measure defense, since he was the defensive anchor. As the lynchpin of the Celtics' defenses, the team DRtgs you linked paint a great picture of his impact.

As for DWS, there's a problem comparing across eras:



link (http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/ws.html)

I have a few problems with this methodology.

• steals and blocks aren't great estimators of defensive impact, particular for a defensive anchor

• rebounding is closely linked to defensive prowess for anchors, but the two are not intrinsically linked; this is in particular an issue for bigs like Russell; personally though, I consider rebounding to be a separate phases of the game from offense/defense

• a regression won't measure the blocking capabilities of an outlier in blocks like Russell; from reading articles, it looks like Russell averaged 5-10 rebounds each season from when he entered the league

• in addition, I have an issue with using steals as a proxy for defense

DWS are useless for the most part, especially when data is missing; I think, as you articulated in your post, that the team DRtgs do the job here

Didn't know all of that. I certainly don't agree with using assists/team assists in place of steals. Unless I'm just not seeing something, that seems downright silly. From the looks of that equation, players who are much better rebounders than they are blockers get overrated, and players who are much better blockers than they are rebounders get underrated. I'm not entirely sure what that means in Russell's case, since he was extraordinary in both aspects. My hunch tells me that using Russell's rebounds in place of his blocked shots is underrating him. In other words, I think Russell was a better shot blocker than he was a rebounder.

Looking at it from a mathematical perspective(and correct me if I'm wrong), Russell grabbed approximately 37% of his team's rebounds in the 1964 season. If we separate his blocks from rebounds and measure those independently as a fraction of the total team rebounds and team blocks, then the break even point will be exactly 37%. If Russell averages more than 37% of his team's blocks then this proxy is underrating him, and if Russell averages less than 37% of his team's blocks then he's being overrating by this proxy. In other words.

.5(.37) = .35(.37) + .15(.37)

For comparison, Hakeem Olajuwon averaged 68% of his team's blocks in the 89-90 season.

As for the assist proxy, my hunch doesn't really know what to think. Applying the same process we did above, Russell would have to account for 23% of his team's steals to break even. Any less than 23% and this proxy is overrating him, and any more than that and it's underrating him. Again, the closest modern comparison I can think of is Hakeem Olajuwon. Those two are without a doubt the best perimeter defending big men I've ever seen. Both had cat like hands and reflexes, as well as quick lateral feet that allowed them to wrack up steals similarly to a guard. For comparison, Olajuwon averaged 26% of his team's steals in 89 and would therefore be underrated by this proxy.

Don't be afraid to tear me down if I'm just a bumbling idiot. It's been an eternity since I've taken a math class, and over three years since I've had any real mathematical responsibility at all(I'm retired).

I can't say I agree with not including defensive rebounds as part of defense. It's certainly a bone of contention among many basketball circles, but I do see the argument for inclusion. You can think of a defensive rebound as somewhat similar to a block or a steal in the sense that it "steals" the possession away from the offense and gives it to the defense, the two major differences being that it has a 100% conversion rate, and it's generally a much easier feat.

[fpliii]

Didn't know all of that. I certainly don't agree with using assists/team assists in place of steals. Unless I'm just not seeing something, that seems downright silly. From the looks of that equation, players who are much better rebounders than they are blockers get overrated, and players who are much better blockers than they are rebounders get underrated. I'm not entirely sure what that means in Russell's case, since he was extraordinary in both aspects. My hunch tells me that using Russell's rebounds in place of his blocked shots is underrating him. In other words, I think Russell was a better shot blocker than he was a rebounder.

You're spot on.

Looking at it from a mathematical perspective(and correct me if I'm wrong), Russell grabbed approximately 37% of his team's rebounds in the 1964 season. If we separate his blocks from rebounds and measure those independently as a fraction of the total team rebounds and team blocks, then the break even point will be exactly 37%. If Russell averages more than 37% of his team's blocks then this proxy is underrating him, and if Russell averages less than 37% of his team's blocks then he's being overrating by this proxy. In other words.

.5(.37) = .35(.37) + .15(.37)

For comparison, Hakeem Olajuwon averaged 68% of his team's blocks in the 89-90 season.

Pretty much.

As for the assist proxy, my hunch doesn't really know what to think. Applying the same process we did above, Russell would have to account for 23% of his team's steals to break even. Any less than 23% and this proxy is overrating him, and any more than that and it's underrating him. Again, the closest modern comparison I can think of is Hakeem Olajuwon. Those two are without a doubt the best perimeter defending big men I've ever seen. Both had cat like hands and reflexes, as well as quick lateral feet that allowed them to wrack up steals similarly to a guard. For comparison, Olajuwon averaged 26% of his team's steals in 89 and would therefore be underrated by this proxy.

Again, I believe this is correct.

Don't be afraid to tear me down if I'm just a bumbling idiot. It's been an eternity since I've taken a math class, and over three years since I've had any real mathematical responsibility at all(I'm retired).

Don't worry about it, you're doing just fine. There are flaws with the regression.

I can't say I agree with not including defensive rebounds as part of defense. It's certainly a bone of contention among many basketball circles, but I do see the argument for inclusion. You can think of a defensive rebound as somewhat similar to a block or a steal in the sense that it "steals" the possession away from the offense and gives it to the defense, the two major differences being that it has a 100% conversion rate, and it's generally a much easier feat.

As for rebounding, I guess it really boils down to personal opinion. I mean really, what is offense, and what is defense? To me, offense is the process of putting the ball in the basket, while defense is preventing the other team from getting the ball there. But after a shot attempt that reaches the basket? Somebody has to secure the ball, and it doesn't matter if you were just on offense or defense (though that plays a role in positioning obviously). Of the other times when a FGA or FTA doesn't end a possession:

[DatAsh]

[QUOTE=fpliii]As for rebounding, I guess it really boils down to personal opinion. I mean really, what is offense, and what is defense? To me, offense is the process of putting the ball in the basket, while defense is preventing the other team from getting the ball there. But after a shot attempt that reaches the basket? Somebody has to secure the ball, and it doesn't matter if you were just on offense or defense (though that plays a role in positioning obviously). Of the other times when a FGA or FTA doesn't end a possession:

[1987_Lakers]

Pippen at best is top 25, at worst top 30.

[DatAsh]

Pippen at best is top 25, at worst top 30.

About how I see it.

[Dragonyeuw]

If you're in the top 30 all-time players in the history of a league that has seen several thousand players, are we really going to squabble over whether Pippen is 20th, or 22nd, or 27th? I mean guys here get out of shape if you rank Kobe 8th when they feel he should be 6th, or 5th, or whatever. Seriously? :facepalm

I mean this is so subjective as to be a pointless argument.

[Bigsmoke]

If you're in the top 30 all-time players in the history of a league that has seen several thousand players, are we really going to squabble over whether Pippen is 20th, or 22nd, or 27th? I mean guys here get out of shape if you rank Kobe 8th when they feel he should be 6th, or 5th, or whatever. Seriously? :facepalm

I mean this is so subjective as to be a pointless argument.

whose ass as that on your av?

[Dragonyeuw]

whose ass as that on your av?

lol just a random chick....

[97 bulls]

If you're in the top 30 all-time players in the history of a league that has seen several thousand players, are we really going to squabble over whether Pippen is 20th, or 22nd, or 27th? I mean guys here get out of shape if you rank Kobe 8th when they feel he should be 6th, or 5th, or whatever. Seriously? :facepalm

I mean this is so subjective as to be a pointless argument.
Ive always stayed away from trying to rank players. There is no fair measurement to saying why one should be ranked over the other. Whats more. The players ranked are mainly there because theyre thhe most popular and fan favorites.

Perhaps puttting them in tiers would be fairer.

My stance is people against people saying Pippen wasnt a franchise player. And try to point to him not winning a championship in 94 and 95 as an indication. That I vehemently disagree with.

[LeBird]

If I didn't know any better, that looks like somebody trying to pull a Fast One.

For me, bar a handful of players the defensive aspect is overrated when it comes to measuring how good a player's impact is. Especially man-to-man defending. IMO, it is the team that defends and it's just the nature of the sport that very few players (maybe a handful in basketball history) are so valuable on the defensive end that they can alter a game's path by that virtue largely. Most great scorers will get past even elite/great defenders - their efficiency may suffer here and there but they'll largely be effective anyway. Look at a Bird against Jordan+Pippen, for example; or Jordan v the Celtics.

Whereas basketball is a game where the point-scoring phase of the game can be largely carried by one player and he can not only greatly affect the match in question but take a team to a deep play-off run.

[Dragonyeuw]

Ive always stayed away from trying to rank players. There is no fair measurement to saying why one should be ranked over the other. Whats more. The players ranked are mainly there because theyre thhe most popular and fan favorites.

Perhaps puttting them in tiers would be fairer.



I like to think of the NBA in terms of two different eras: the 'golden' era which would encompass the 50's, 60's, 70's and would include guys like Mikan, Russell, prime Wilt, Kareem,Oscar, West, Cousy so on and so on. I think you can reasonably measure those players against each other.

The 'modern' era would be from 80's/90's to today. I think if you take any of the 80's/90's best like Magic, Bird, Jordan, Isiah, Hakeem, Barkley, Malone, Shaq,Stockton, Pippen, and so on and so on, you can reasonably measure those guys against today's stars even with rule changes.

Comparing the game in the 50's to today is like night and day; for that reason I think it's impossible to rank Mikan, he was a pioneer but the game has greatly evolved since then. It's a disservice to him to try and compare him to the great centers of the last 20 years. It's also difficult to measure Oscar and West compared to Kobe. They're separated by 30 years, the modern guard's skillset has evolved, and today's players have the benefit and advantage of learning from who came before them.

I would sooner do a list of 'the best players you've actually seen'.

[Bigsmoke]

lol just a random chick....

so much ass
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/LunarWind/Emoticons/Pervert.gif

[Dragonyeuw]

so much ass
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v625/LunarWind/Emoticons/Pervert.gif


:cheers:

[Owl]

To the main point. It's not just the internet, almost no published list has had Pippen in the top 20.

The one that did (Athlon in 1998) had him 19th. Since then there has been Shaq, Duncan and Kobe who are generally held to be above him plus others who you might debate. The lowest rating Pippen has held (Slam, 2003) is 41st so there seems to be a consensus that he's in the 20-40 range (and that he was the best small forward, in terms of all-time rankings, to have played primarily in the 90s).

To the inclusion of rings in this debate: It's silly and will constantly be rebutted with pictures of Robert Horry, Steve Kerr and John Salley. People will always respond "Ah but they weren't the alpha-dogs". The response to which is, how do you know? Surely the best way of evaluating players is rings? Unless you have found some new way, in which players can be evaluated, and if so can we not apply this to comparing players on other teams rather than just saying "more titles = better".